linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 5.8, part 2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200615125701.GY27795@twin.jikos.cz>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:57:01 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 5.8, part 2

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 09:50:17AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 4:56 AM David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > Reverts are not great, but under current circumstances I don't see
> > better options.
> 
> Pulled. Are people discussing how to make iomap work for everybody?
> It's a bit sad if we can't have the major filesystems move away from
> the old buffer head interfaces to a common more modern one..

Yes, it's fixable and we definitely want to move to iomap. The direct to
buffered fallback would fix one of the problems, but this would also
mean that xfs would start doing that. Such change should be treated more
like a feature development than a bugfix, imposed by another filesystem,
and xfs people rightfully complained.

It's quite possible that there's a better way to fix it on the iomap API
level but I haven't looked into that yet. We get support from iomap
people to add what we need for btrfs, so it's just a matter of time and
testing.